ArticleCureus2024
A Retrospective Study on the Long-Term Outcomes of Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Versus Sublobar Resection in Lung Cancer: Analysis From the Scottish Cancer Registry.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA comparison between sublobar resection and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the treatment of lung cancer is a trending topic. However, there is still a lack of strong randomized controlled trials on this subject. We believe that the National Cancer Registry can provide good insight into decision-making when comparing these two modalities of treatment.
methodsThe Scottish Cancer Network (SCAN) data were assessed retrospectively. These data included 2000 patients who had lung cancer between April 2013 and December 2022. We included 67 patients who had SABR (group 1) for early-stage lung cancer (T1-T2 N0) between January 2017 and December 2019 and 114 patients who had sublobar resection (group 2) for lung cancer (all comers) between April 2013 and December 2019.
resultsThe average age in the SABR group was 74 years vs. 69 years in the sublobar group (P = 0.002). The overall recurrence was similar in the SABR group (29 patients) and the sublobar resection group (19 patients) (28.3% vs. 25.4%, respectively, P = 0.667). The overall survival (primary endpoint) was significantly better with patients who were treated with surgery than SABR (85.15 vs. 60.14 months, P = 0.006). The sublobar resection group showed an upgrade in staging after surgery compared to the preoperative stage on PET scan in the T stage (31 patients, 27.2%) and in the N stage (five patients, 4.3%). Patients who had SABR needed more CT scans for follow-up compared to the sublobar resection group (seven vs. four scans, respectively).
conclusionSublobar lung resection should remain the preferable treatment for lung cancer in patients who are suitable for resection. Large randomized controlled trials are still needed to guide treatment in patients who are suitable for both options of treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.